The Sociolinguistics of Science: The Longue Durée

In the field of history , it is useful to make a distinction between the writing up of history, which dates back to the ancients, and the much more recent concept of history as a systematic research practice, which is a product of the nineteenth century (e.g., Lindberg 2012). Between these two phases, we find a process of overt professionalization and the rise of history as a disciplinary field in its own right. Throughout both periods, the main knowledge interest was the same: Sweden and Swedish history. By the same token, in the field of history Swedish has predominated in publishing over the past 125 years.

The writing of history was important during the time of the Swedish empire, as the history of the nation was identified with its ruling kings, and therefore had to be written and preserved. For example, the creation of Riksantikvarieämbetet [The Swedish National Heritage Board] in the seventeenth-century-made Swedish ‘old-history’ into an object of patriotic study (Sörlin 1994, 54). This sort of history writing, thus, was what Nietzsche referred to as ‘monumental,’ that is, backward-looking, idolatrous, and instigative—but with no articulated theory (Lindberg 2012, 19). Aiming as it did to glorify the olden days of Sweden, this sort of history writing was often addressed to a foreign readership, and accordingly, most of the early national chronicles of Nordic and Scandinavian history were written in Latin . However, well into the eighteenth century, after the fall of the empire, the emphasis on the grandiosity of the homeland was replaced by a form of patriotic utilitarianism (Lindberg 2012, 10–12). This moreover led to a re-orientation toward a domestic readership, a practice pioneered by Olof Rudbeck, who wrote Atlantica (1679–1702) in Swedish (Nordin 2008, 42).

Lectures in history were delivered in Swedish in the middle of the eighteenth century (Lindroth 1978, 582; Tengström 1973, 81–82). Publication practices, however, were still enmeshed in a Latinist culture. In the subject of history at Uppsala University , dissertations were written in Latin almost entirely until the year of 1842, after which both Swedish and Latin were used (Markelin 1856; Tengström 1973, 91). The trend, however, worked steadily in favor of Swedish, where, increasingly, Latin was often used so long as the research dealt with the source material, while the actual writing up of history was done in Swedish (Lindberg 1984, 110).

Kjørup (1996, 30) draws a dividing line between the prehistories and the histories of the humanities around the year 1800. The nineteenth-century implementation of German university ideals and subsequent organization worked in favor of the historical field , not least of all due to currents of romanticism and nationalism (Odén 1991, 50). Throughout the nineteenth century, the field experienced an overt process of professionalization (Björk 2012). Archives were made available to historical research, and the field began to develop a new orientation toward epistemological beliefs in research results: that new knowledge could be produced by adopting particular methods, theories, and so forth (e.g., Torstendahl 1964, 1966). Attempts were made to situate history onto what was perceived to be ‘the real’ terrain of science, not least of all by gearing toward the positivism of Comte’s sociology as an inroad to establishing laws of human behavior (Torstendahl 1966, 34–35).

In Sweden, rapid industrialization and movement toward modernization at the end of the nineteenth century boosted national science (Crawford 1992, 36). Disciplinary fields were increasingly established nationally, and journals were founded that would long come to dominate and define their fields: Samlaren in literature studies in 1880, Ymer in anthropology and geography in 1881, Arkiv för nordisk filologi in Scandinavian linguistics in 1882, etc. Concomitantly, the field of history grew rapidly at Swedish universities. Here, the journal Historisk tidskrift was founded in 1880, with the aim of distributing scientific work that was comprehensible also for the educated public (Odén 1991, 59). Like the above-mentioned journals, Historisk tidskrift consequently published work in Swedish. This period, moreover, coincided with the book becoming established as the key genre for scientific dissemination (Myrdal 2009, 93, and note 80 there).

In the humanities , in particular, national romantic currents were particularly strong from the 1890s on, which led to the blossoming of interest in Swedish culture and its distinctive characteristics (e.g., Johannisson 1989, 100ff.; Sörlin 1996). In history, programs for doctoral studies were launched in 1890, which led to an increased production of theses in Uppsala and Lund , and later in Gothenburg and Stockholm . At the history departments at all of these universities, Swedish was the main language used in writing theses (Pikwer 1980). Publishing practices were now being rapidly nationalized. Josephson’s (1897) bibliography of theses covering the second half of the nineteenth century shows an almost complete dominance by Swedish and only occasional instances of Latin within the field. Out of 339 theses listed for ‘General history’ and ‘The history of Sweden’ during this time, 334 were written in Swedish, 2 in Latin, and 3 in undetermined languages.

Studying academic expert reviews, Larsson (2010) investigates the value of scientific ideals as attached to certain ideal types of historians throughout the first half of the twentieth century. According to Larsson, the empirically driven scholars, those who invested their time in the archives, enjoyed high currency at the beginning of the century, while scholars more attuned to theorizing were privileged in the middle of the century. According to many historiographies, the twentieth century was dominated by a struggle between two schools of thought within the historical field : The Hjärne school, based in Uppsala, and the Weibull school, based in Lund (see Björk 2012 and Torstendahl and Odén 2012, respectively). Hjärne was an influential field-founder who created a research environment that came to yield a substantial number of followers (Odén 1991, 153). Although he was a conservative, caught up in the romantic spirit of his time (e.g., Johannisson 1989, 101), Hjärne nevertheless believed in scientific universalism and urged historians to account for the phenomena of study against the backdrop of the world beyond Sweden (Hasselberg 2007, 100–105). Moreover, he sought to create a rupture in the field’s national isolation by establishing links to other countries (Odén 1991, 154; Torstendahl 1964, 286). Nonetheless, in the 1930s Uppsala grew to become a stronghold for historical research with a strong nationalistic footing (Gunnerisson 2002). In this sense, the professionalization of the research of the field can be seen as being linked to the strategic positioning of providing the nation-state with a glorious past (Jarrick 2013, 56). This position, however, was challenged in the years to come by the more radical school in Lund , led by Lauritz Weibull , which sought to break with the hitherto prevailing ideological project by adopting a fact-oriented approach that would ‘transform politics into science’ (ibid.). The journal Scandia was founded at the school in 1928 to be a place where a challenging line of historical research could be cultivated and distributed. In line with this strategy, Weibull and followers could take advantage of the fact that, after World War II , nationalistic overtones had lost a great deal of currency in the field of history and elsewhere (Gunnerisson 2002). In the 1950s, the internal struggle between competing historical views began to lose its force in the historical field , as students of Weibull held professorships at every Swedish university—a new school of thought now dominated the field (ibid., 212, 230f.).

As will be evident in the case of psychology, many disciplinary fields in Swedish academia became geared toward transnational publishing markets around this time. The field of history , however, did not shift in this direction. At any rate, the prevalent struggles of the field did not have much impact on languages of publishing. They unfolded in the field when international engagements by and large were toned down, a trait that was particularly salient in the period from 1914 to 1950 (Brissman 2010, 405). In fact, the strong empiricism in the Weibullian tradition had further contributed to nationalizing the field (Odén 1991, 166). Likewise, the questions of method were privileged over questions of theory, as the latter was seen as mirroring the values of the conservative (Hasselberg 2007, 31). Accordingly, the position of Swedish as a thesis language remained unchallenged. Pikwer’s (1980) bibliography covering the years 1890–1975 reveals an almost complete dominance by Swedish, with a mere 6% being written in other languages. Among the theses written in languages other than Swedish, German was the only language manifesting up until the 1940s, after which English began to acquire shares in the publishing market (Blom 1980, 9).

Throughout the post-war era, the field of history was undergoing a more profound shift in respect to what Liedman (1983) calls its usage of knowledge : away from humanistic knowledge as ideologically usable and toward an increasingly state-linked view of administrative usability, for example, concerning reform politics (Odén 1991, 328; Sörlin 2013, 23). This shift also introduced a discourse in the field on the importance of asserting itself as a mature scientific field in its own right. Torstendahl’s book Historia som vetenskap [History as a Science] (1966) can be seen as manifesting a development whereby questions of method, primarily quantitative approaches, appeared on the field’s agenda. From this point, a discussion was launched about the relationship between history and the social sciences in Sweden, which also led to an increased adoption of theory, first imported from North American structural functionalism and, later, Marxist theorizing (Åmark 2012, 145–146). Commonly, such initiatives to change the field came from doctoral candidates (Odén 1991, 174). In the 1970s, the field also saw a slightly increased interest in engaging with global history, a trend reflected in the increasing number of theses posing research questions beyond the national paradigm (e.g., Eklöf Amirell 2006a, 262). Around this time, around 10% of the theses were written in English (Blom 1980, 9). To some extent, the establishment of Scandinavian Journal of History in 1976 can be seen in this light, that is, as a way of expanding the frontiers of Swedish history research through a forum publishing in English (e.g., Mörner 1985, 446).

To many historians—not least those that Larsson (2010) refers to as ‘the martyrs of the archives’—these developments were seen as damaging, since they jointly shifted emphasis away from the empirical legacy of the field (Åmark 2012, 148). The fluxes in the field, additionally, were seen as screening the field’s knowledge production from the educated public (ibid., 170). Related to this, moreover, Swedish history research was evaluated by a Scandinavian expert group in 1988 (Danielsen et al. 1988). Here, the field was criticized for being overtly intra-scientific and for not reporting their findings sufficiently to the general public. The committee pointed out that Swedish historical research results were often presented in a style appraised as ‘lærd,’ ‘u-folkelig,’ and ‘kjedelig’ (p. 124)—that is, scholarly lettered, anti-grassroot, and boring. Five years later, Åmark (1993) reported that the field at large had already responded to this line of criticism. Pioneered by the work of Englund (e.g., 1988), arguably, many historians soon began to develop a preference for writing up history for a wider audience, thereby acquiring capital outside the field. Thus, while fields often struggle to defend their autonomy (e.g., Maton 2005), this does not merely entail isolating the field from external interest, but also of reclaiming the turf of historical knowledge. In the eyes of many historians, the field was perceived as having been left too open to groups with other knowledge interests (Åmark 1993, 273; 2012). As a field of knowledge production, history had—and still has—competition among agents from a range of other fields with an interest in producing accounts about the past, for example, journalists, popular writers, teachers, and politicians (e.g., Stråth 2013). Names in the Swedish context include authors such as Herman Lindqvist and Jan Guillou from the 1990s and onwards, and, decades later, Henrik Arnstad. These are the agents who have not paid their entry fee to the historical field and are, accordingly, labeled ‘entertainment historians’ by the field’s agents (Sörlin 2013, 22). Consequently, agents of the historical field commonly criticize these authors for not adhering to the principles of ‘proper’ history research, that is, for not being real historians, yet producing historical accounts (see, e.g., Meinander 2006).

Accordingly, along with an increased public interest, Swedish history research saw a tendency among Swedish historians to publish more easily accessible work aimed for a broader Swedish-speaking audience (e.g., Eklöf Amirell 2006a, 274–275). This fact amplified a number of already existing traits of historical research. Firstly, it contributed to further rendering the borderline between strictly scientific work and more popular accounts much less distinct in history, compared to other disciplines (e.g., Danielsen et al. 1988, 99). Secondly, it worked in favor of a preexisting reluctance among Swedish historians to publish in languages other than Swedish; in the period 1990–1996, the share of theses in English remained around 10% (Aronsson 1997, 35), rising to 12.5% in the period 1997–2001 (Aronsson 2003, 184). Some historians have criticized this state of affairs by framing it as a question of a general disinterest in global perspectives among Swedish historians (e.g., Eklöf Amirell 2006a, b; Mörner 1985). In an overview of the field’s international foci, Mörner (1985) pointed out that existing bibliographies of Swedish dissertations in history (e.g., Pikwer 1980; Blom 1980) reveal a heavy bias toward an interest in general Swedish history and Swedish local history. Particularly worrisome, argued Mörner, was that Swedish history research was becoming more nationally oriented throughout the twentieth century, with the exception of the 1970s, during which internationally oriented theses peaked. ² This state of affairs notwithstanding, Mörner argued, Swedish historical research cannot be said to be more nationally oriented than the history writing of other European countries (Mörner 1985, 441); history, thus, appears to adhere to the national paradigm also in a global perspective.

In a follow-up study of this development into the new millennium, Eklöf Amirell (2006a) shows that internationally oriented history research has continued to decrease, constituting a mere share of 16.8% in the first 5 years of the twenty-first century, which amounts to about the same levels in place in the 1940s and 1950s. Eklöf Amirell also claims that out of the country’s 48 active professors, only five have pursued a principally international research agenda (ibid., 266). As for the languages used in the theses, Eklöf Amirell (2007) presented a bibliography listing 606 doctoral theses defended in Sweden between 1976 and 2005. Here, it is notable that more than 80% of the theses were written in Swedish at all eight universities included in the study; in Stockholm , Växjö, and Örebro, the share was more than 90%. He shows that 13.2 of the theses defended in the whole period were in English and that a mere 2.5% were written in other foreign languages; hence, the vast majority was written in Swedish. Among the theses dealing with the Swedish context, only 3.6% were written in English. Eklöf Amirell interprets these findings as an indication that Swedish newcomers to the field, to a small extent, seek to contribute to the international scientific discussion by means of the knowledge they produce.

Doctoral theses, however, only amount to a small share of the scientific texts produced in historical research. As for other genres —thus written by researchers at all levels—publications in English are more common since 2000. Salö and Josephson (2014, 278), for instance, show a slight inclination toward the use of English in journal articles and a more significant dominance of English in conference proceedings. Congruently, Amirell (2013) shows that 58% of the peer-reviewed articles published in the field between 2009 and 2012 were in English. Nevertheless, Swedish dominates in the genres in which there is the greatest number of publications, viz. books and chapters (Amirell 2013, 501; Salö and Josephson 2014, 278).

Compared to history, psychology has a much shorter history in Sweden, in particular, as an autonomous disciplinary field . Nilsson (1981) dates the establishment of psychology as a field in its own right in Sweden to the post-war era, when the first chair professor was installed at Uppsala University in 1948. Compared to other European nations, including neighboring countries such as Denmark, this was a late start (Madsen 1970, 123). Also, from an international perspective, psychology constitutes an illustrative example of a field that, throughout its history of growth, has shifted in different disciplinary directions. In bygone days, questions of a psychological nature were generally dealt with within the broad realms of philosophy and, to a lesser degree, pedagogics , medicine , and physiology (Sörlin 2004, 208). Thus, while an interest in psychological reasoning can be traced back to classical antiquity, it was not until the late nineteenth century that psychology began to emerge as a field in its own right (Kjørup 1996, 28). At this stage, Germany stood out as the first intellectual locus out of which psychological thought and research practice were exported—not least of all to the USA, where an experimental orientation swiftly gained popularity (Sörlin 2004, 209). Madsen (1970, 45) provides an overview of the rapid creation of psychological laboratories between the years 1875 and 1897, when a large number of laboratories were built across Europe and North America—after 1886, at the rate of at least two laboratories per year.

In Sweden, the development of psychology as an autonomous field was hindered by its ties to broader disciplinary embedding, where in particular the legacy from Boströmian idealist philosophy stalled the development of an experimental natural scientist approach (Agrell 1952; Hyden 1984; Nilsson 1978, 1981). Psychological research was carried out within the disciplinary boundaries of other fields, such as philosophy and physiology (Madsen 1970, 53; Nilsson 2008, 165; Lundh 1979; Öhman and Öhngren 1991, 21). In the first half of the twentieth century, psychology developed as a branch of the broad field of pedagogy , under which influences from German phenomenological experimental psychology was subordinated (Nilsson 2008, 165).

In the premature rise of psychology in Sweden, Swedish was the main language in the few doctoral theses written. During the period 1855–1890, Josephson (1897, 284) lists 13 theses, of which 10 were written in Swedish and one each in German , French , and English. This tendency remained intact over the following five decades. For the category ‘Psychology and pedagogics ,’ Nelson (1911) lists eight theses between 1890 and 1909, all of which were written in Swedish. For the period 1910–1940, Tuneld (1945) lists 17 theses, of which all were written in Swedish, again in the category ‘Psychology and pedagogics .’ Likewise, based in Uppsala, the journal Psyke (1906–1920) published work authored mainly in Swedish, albeit with occasional contributions in other Scandinavian languages, as well as in German . In sum, then, we can say that Swedish dominated in the publications, including the theses, written in the field of psychology so long as psychology remained a subject enclosed within the boundaries of other fields (see Brissman 2010, 399–400, note 616).

However, a number of events in the surrounding world would soon come to have an impact on Swedish psychology—in publishing practices and otherwise. World War I had severely damaged the form of scientific internationalism that had previously burgeoned and instead made researchers around the world submit to the service of their nations (Landström 1996). Around this time, the USA was putting significant economic and infrastructural effort into research, not least of all through the organization of research councils (Brissman 2010, 96ff.). The onset of the decline of German as a scientific language internationally is thus to be located after World War I (Ammon 2012; Gordin 2015, 7). But this development was soon furthered. The outcome of World War II was disastrous for the position of Germany as an intellectual node, which was reflected in Swedish scholarship in psychology and beyond. Throughout the launch of Hitler ’s regime, the USA enjoyed a significant immigration of European psychologists. At the same time, the USA invested heavily into research (e.g., Sörlin 1994), and here a renewed interest in perceptional psychology gained currency (Madsen 1970, 112). Thus, at this point in time, the USA replaced Germany as the key geopolitical point of intellectual orientation. This can be seen, for example, in the purchases of scholarly psychological literature made by Swedish libraries. Sörlin (1994, 108–109) notes that in psychology, new German books amounted to 42% of the total number of foreign books purchased in 1930: 29% in 1938, and a mere 1.2% in 1946. The share of American scholarly titles by now amounted to 53.5%.

In 1937, the Swedish field of psychology was joined by the eminent experimental psychologist David Katz , who had come to Stockholm due to turbulence in Central Europe. Katz was already a big name in German Gestalt psychology, and, on his way to Sweden, he had stayed for 4 years in England, where he established many contacts (Nilsson 1981, 2008). Even though Katz belonged to a German tradition and wrote mostly in German , he brought an international orientation and reputation to the Swedish field (Ekman 1972, 166; Hugdahl and Öhman 1987, 464–465). To his successors, namely the generation of experimental psychologists that pursued his work, this international orientation was accompanied by a strong American influence. Swedish–USA academic relationships had already been established in the young social sciences , not least of all due to the connections created by Alva and Gunnar Myrdal (e.g., Myrdal and Myrdal 1941). Allied with the social-democratic dominant party, the Myrdals are widely considered to be the social engineers of the so-called Swedish model, which, among other things, involved a salient strand of internationalism as part of a broader modernizing project for the nation (Löfgren 1992; Ruth 1984). Around this time, the Myrdals thought of America as a model of inspiration: ‘the continent of the future, land of the brave where the political will to implement radical and bold solutions to social issues existed at a time when they clearly thought it did not in Sweden’ (Andersson 2009, 233).

While the impact of the Myrdals should not be overstated, ³ it is clear that, directly after the war, North American connections were soon customary in the psychological field . This tendency was particularly noticeable in relation to the series of international congresses that were organized, where Swedish psychologists made acquaintances with renowned American scholars such as B.F. Skinner (Sörlin 1994, 206). Likewise, at Swedish universities, scholars began to subscribe to journals published by the American Psychological Association, and Swedish psychology researchers began visiting the USA regularly, for example, as guest professors, conference participants, etc., which also resulted in the emergence of a tradition in which doctoral candidates went on stipends to study in the USA (Sörlin 1994, 206–207). In the mid-twentieth century, chairs in pedagogy were split into one professorship in pedagogy and one in psychology, and departments of psychology were created to house the latter group of professors at Sweden’s major universities: Uppsala in 1948, Stockholm in 1953, Lund in 1955, and Gothenburg in 1956 (Husén 1972; Künnapas 1976; Öhman and Öhngren 1991, 21). Accordingly, as more programmatic psychological research began developing in Stockholm and Lund in the 1950s, North American influences were already in circulation. The so-called Stockholm school developed under the leadership of Gösta Ekman , who took office after Katz . Throughout the 1950s and onward, Ekman and his followers developed an interest and research agenda in psychophysics . Unlike as it had been under Katz , psychophysics as headed by Ekman had strong ties to North American psychology of that time, where it had developed rapidly since the 1920s, linked to names such as L.L. Thurstone and S.S. Stevens (Ekman and Künnapas 1972, 195; Hugdahl and Öhman 1987, 468). Psychophysics encompassed measuring methods that were imported from the field of physics (Ekman and Künnapas 1972, 195), which, in the Stockholm group, led to a strong emphasis on method and quantification, as well as an alignment with the American praxis of working in research groups, with co-authoring as a common trait (Nilsson 2008, 167). While the Stockholm group appears to have pioneered this development, psychological research in various areas advanced at other universities too. Groundbreaking work was presented in dissertations defended in Stockholm and Uppsala , for example, on event perception (Johansson 1950), psychophysics (Künnapas 1959), and motion perception (Mashhour 1964)—with all of these theses being written in English (see Johansson 1972). Under the leadership of Gudmund Smith, psychological research in Lund invested heavily in psychological theory, but, as it did also in Stockholm , this research adhered to a methodological approach imported from the American tradition (Nilsson 2008, 168). Smith in Lund , as well as Ekman in Stockholm, considered psychology to be part of the natural sciences , and they both wrote their most important work in English, often in collaboration with American colleagues (ibid., 168–171).

Around 1950, Swedish psychologists began to publish their work in international journals. Swedish scholars who entered the field at this time enjoyed significant international success, with several making important contributions to the international forefront. By now, the Swedish field was rapidly consolidating. Ekman played a part in the founding of Nordisk Psykologi [Scandinavian Psychology], the first issue of which was published in 1949. The founding of this journal was initiated by psychological associations in Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Sweden, with the aim of providing a forum for scholarly and professional exchange in the Scandinavian countries. It contained a mixture of scientific articles , country reports, bibliographies, and reviews, thus serving as a professional forum for establishing linkages between the ways psychology was evolving in neighboring countries. For example, the first few issues contained accounts on the history of the field in each country, as well as accounts on the current knowledge frontier and tendencies across a range of different areas.

Initially in Nordisk Psykologi , Scandinavian languages were used most commonly, with the occasional exception of articles in English. Already in 1950, however, the journal imposed a policy of English language abstracts for original research articles. In 1951, Stockholm hosted the International Congress of Psychology. Linked to this event, Issue 3 (1951) was a special issue in English dedicated to presenting psychology research in Scandinavia. Thus, the issue comprised country reports written by Scandinavian scholars, according to the editor (p. 74), ‘to inform their colleagues throughout the world about the directions in which psychological research in our countries has developed.’ Conversely, the journal served as a way of informing the field about the development in psychology in the USA, as well as evaluating the Swedish field’s position in relation to the international forefront. In one such report, Karsten (1952) pointed out that in the USA, the discussion on methodology dominated the scene. Reviewing developmental tendencies in Swedish psychological research, Agrell (1953) made reference to parallel currencies in American psychology and concluded that, in general, current Swedish research foci were well aligned with contemporary advances on the international scene (p. 106). Three years later, Ahlström (1956) came to a similar conclusion in his overview, but pointed out that the Swedish field lagged behind that of others in the area of acquisition and learning. In this vein, thus, the Swedish field kept close track of cross-Atlantic developments.

In the editorial of Issue 7 of the same journal in 1955, it was pointed out that the language policy that had been upheld thus far had limited the readership significantly, and that Scandinavian psychologists who aimed for an international audience, therefore, had been forced to turn to non-Scandinavian journals. For this reason, it was declared that Nordisk Psykologi had joined a partnership with the internationally renowned Acta Psychologica in Amsterdam, with the aim of cross-publishing articles. As a consequence, subsequent issues comprised a mixture of work written in Scandinavian languages and work written in English, for example, in the form of papers read at international conferences. Likewise, for a period, some issues (9, 1957) were dominated by English articles, while others consisted mostly of work in Scandinavian languages (10, 1958), etc.

Sjöberg (1976) provided a cross-country comparison of internationally oriented psychological research in Scandinavia. ‘International’ here was operationalized as work published in non-Scandinavian languages, which, as he noted, meant, for the most part, work published in English (p. 209). As his results show, Swedish psychologists were significantly more internationally oriented than their Scandinavian counterparts. As one of the potential reasons for this state of affairs, Sjöberg mentioned the compilation theses —that is, article-based theses with an introduction—which by now were gaining popularity within the Swedish doctoral programs, accompanied by a thorough training in writing articles for international journals. Likewise, all five departments of psychology in Sweden now had an English language report series of their own, thus providing important training in using written English professionally.

In sum, the grounding of the international profile of Swedish psychology can be explained by the spirit initiated by Katz but amplified by the research agenda pursued by Ekman in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., Hugdahl and Öhman 1987, 464; Sjöberg 1976). In this period, the field left its national anchorage behind. This shift in orientation was palpably reflected in publishing practices and the languages used for these ends. University of Gothenburg provides an illustrative case, where the Department of Psychology published 251 theses between 1934 and 2015: 221 in English and 30 in Swedish. Among the first 10 theses to be published (1934–1952), eight were in Swedish. Since then, Swedish theses have been submitted only occasionally: none in the 1960s, six in the 1970s, seven in the 1980s, four in the 1990s, and four in the 2000s. ⁴ As for the predominance of English, we can also look at the theses published at Stockholm University . From 1947 to 2005, a total of 234 theses were published, of which 197 were written in English, and 37 in Swedish. ⁵ The theses in Swedish are distributed over the entire period, so there is no period of time when choosing Swedish seems to have been particularly common. Rather, work written in Swedish seems to be linked to particular applied subfields of psychology and to genres , such as reports, that are more commonly written in these areas (cf. Salö and Josephson 2014, 280). Likewise, listings of theses published at Uppsala University from 1950 to 1998 show that 94% of the theses were published in English and 6% in Swedish (Wallin 1998). Between 1997 and 2015, 97% were written at the university in English. ⁶ When a wider range of academic genres in the contemporary psychological field is considered, the state of affairs seems more diverse. Nationally, in the time period 2000–2012, the share of English in conference proceedings was 91.7% and journal articles 94.3%, while Swedish publications were in the majority among reports (73.3%) and books (63.5%) (Salö and Josephson 2014, 280).